Page 2362 - Week 09 - Wednesday, 16 September 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
into account one-off payments, et cetera, there is still no budgeted decrease in revenue to allow for the decrease in private patient numbers. Is this another example of Mr Berry hiding behind the business rules in an attempt to make his health budget look credible?
MR BERRY: This is just another cheap shot. The Liberals, and some commentators around the town - the ones that are across the issues have been more forthright on the issue - have refused to recognise the importance of business rules and the fact that supplementation occurs in budgets across the public sector. The Liberals were responsible for what will go down as an infamous period in health because of mismanagement. What we had with the Liberals was a period when there was - - -
Mr Humphries: Can you answer the question or can't you?
MR BERRY: You ought to fidget. There was $6m of unapproved expenditure, which was, in essence, an illegal expenditure of public money. So there was a period of illegal payment. In relation to the health budget in the ACT, there will be business rules and the business rules will take account of costs that increase beyond the control of Health. That is a quite reasonable approach, and the business rules will take account of that.
We are not about guessing what is going to happen in the future in the way we budget. The business rules will take into account those increases in costs to Health or decreases in revenue that arise because of circumstances such as changes in the public-private patient mix. That will be assessed from time to time. As needs arise, requests for supplementation or otherwise will be made in the normal way. There is nothing new in that. We can predict, for example, that there might be wage increases of a certain order between here and the end of the next financial year. But in this case you do not build them into the budget; you deal with it by way of the business rules.
Mr Humphries: That is a blow-out, according to you.
MR BERRY: No, a blow-out is when you spend illegally money that you have obtained, and that is what you did - $6m. I will not do that. I will make sure that we have a structure in place that recognises the already well recognised provision for supplementation in budget processes. Mr Kaine would know well about the need for supplementation when things are out of control, as they were in the case of his colleague - for example, $6m of unapproved expenditure. And you still gave it to him. The business rules will be in place, and the issue of supplementation for the change in the public and private mix will be assessed from time to time throughout the year.
MRS CARNELL: I have a supplementary question. I will not ask the same question; I will ask it in a slightly different way. Why is a prediction made in one part of the budget papers - in fact, only two pages earlier - that there will be a downturn in revenue, and a predictable downturn in revenue, according to the budget papers, not reflected in the budget? Certainly, I accept your point that things are out of the control of the Government. In this particular case, in your budget paper you have said that the downturn to 30 per cent is predictable and is what is happening in the rest of Australia. It is not reflected in the budget. Why?
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .